Board Spill? / Challenge called off/ Malvern Hotel group has re-emerged [update]

[Owl]

LOL no worries quincy

[Harry]

[Owl]

hehe

[one-eyed]

Board challengers refusing to back down

LAUREN WOOD
Herald Sun
7 September 2016

RICHMOND’S board challengers say they “aren’t going away” despite making no progress on their call for the Tigers board led by president Peggy O’Neal to step down.

The Focus on Football ticket launched its assault on Monday but is yet to even speak with O’Neal or other Richmond officials after phone calls again went unanswered.

The group has threatened to force a board spill and election if O’Neal and Co do not leave of their own accord.

Group leader Martin Hiscock was defiant on Tuesday.

“What we plan to do is that myself and (fellow group members) Mag (Kearney) and probably Dr David Marsh would approach Peggy O’Neal in person and have a roundtable discussion with her and Brendon Gale about a smooth takeover,” Hiscock told the Herald Sun.

“That would involve all of our ticket going onto the Richmond Football Club board immediately.

“The whole board has to stand down, but we would then throw the nominations process open and of course we would consider some of the recent appointees to the board among the other aspirants.

“If she declines that ... we would progress then to an EGM (Extraordinary General Meeting).

“I think there’s a time and place (to do it). We’ll work things out between us. I’m sure she’ll respond in the right way — we’re all professionals.”

Richmond officials are considering whether they will meet with the group and could potentially accede to the call next week. The club’s best and fairest is tomorrow night.

Kearney claimed that the group has received “overwhelming support” since Monday’s launch, including from unnamed former Richmond players and board members

We’re not going to go away ... they can’t ignore us,” she said.

Kearney also said the group hoped to meet with Collingwood official Neil Balme this week after naming him as the key target for the position of “CEO of football”.

The group’s public relations strategy saw proposed football director Bryan Wood hit the airwaves, with the three-time premiership Tiger flagging Kevin Sheedy as the type of person it would look to install in an advisory role if it is successful.

“Kevin is quite ensconced and secure at Essendon, but if we can get that type of person back to Richmond to help bring about this success that we want — obviously, yes,” he said.

“Kevin is a great performer and that’s why Essendon got him back there — to help bring about unity.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teams/richmond/richmond-board-challengers-are-refusing-to-back-down/news-story/7e77c03fd7e40f4cea538a1811ea2940

[WilliamPowell]

WP - I'm not questioning whether they are correct or not - I'm sure these are the true results.  I'm questioning the classifications and what constitutes sponsorship/marketing revenue.  25m is a huge amount yet 14m for football revenue is very low.  I'm sure they are meeting their legal requirements, but as all good accountants know there are ways you can group results so certain aspects are not brought to the attention of the viewer. 

If membership dollars can legally be classified as marketing revenue then it's best for the club to muddle this with sponsorship so that sponsorship dollars doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.  I'm not questioning the legality. There's many ways you can group your financials to not bring to light certain aspects of the results.

You say members get full Income Statement (PL statement) now.  Where is this? 

I don't care how they set out the results, I just want to know the details of what makes up these revenue streams, and how much of this revenue is reliant on us supporters and members.

Harry, you are not going to get the detail of you want

the full income statement is how it appear and how it is required to appear under the law is page 14 of last years Concise report

A further breakdown is shown in the cash flow statement

I understand you don't like it but as it stands that is what we get.

[Eat_em_Alive]

14 pages in and I don't have confidence in either group to correct on field woes

[Harry]

WP - I'm not questioning whether they are correct or not - I'm sure these are the true results.  I'm questioning the classifications and what constitutes sponsorship/marketing revenue.  25m is a huge amount yet 14m for football revenue is very low.  I'm sure they are meeting their legal requirements, but as all good accountants know there are ways you can group results so certain aspects are not brought to the attention of the viewer. 

If membership dollars can legally be classified as marketing revenue then it's best for the club to muddle this with sponsorship so that sponsorship dollars doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.  I'm not questioning the legality. There's many ways you can group your financials to not bring to light certain aspects of the results.

You say members get full Income Statement (PL statement) now.  Where is this? 

I don't care how they set out the results, I just want to know the details of what makes up these revenue streams, and how much of this revenue is reliant on us supporters and members.

Harry, you are not going to get the detail of you want

the full income statement is how it appear and how it is required to appear under the law is page 14 of last years Concise report

A further breakdown is shown in the cash flow statement

I understand you don't like it but as it stands that is what we get.

As members we are entitled to further details.  This is the transparency issue we have with the current board.  Keep the toothless ferals in the dark lol

[Chuck17]

WP - I'm not questioning whether they are correct or not - I'm sure these are the true results.  I'm questioning the classifications and what constitutes sponsorship/marketing revenue.  25m is a huge amount yet 14m for football revenue is very low.  I'm sure they are meeting their legal requirements, but as all good accountants know there are ways you can group results so certain aspects are not brought to the attention of the viewer. 

If membership dollars can legally be classified as marketing revenue then it's best for the club to muddle this with sponsorship so that sponsorship dollars doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.  I'm not questioning the legality. There's many ways you can group your financials to not bring to light certain aspects of the results.

You say members get full Income Statement (PL statement) now.  Where is this? 

I don't care how they set out the results, I just want to know the details of what makes up these revenue streams, and how much of this revenue is reliant on us supporters and members.

Harry, you are not going to get the detail of you want

the full income statement is how it appear and how it is required to appear under the law is page 14 of last years Concise report

A further breakdown is shown in the cash flow statement

I understand you don't like it but as it stands that is what we get.

As members we are entitled to further details.  This is the transparency issue we have with the current board.  Keep the toothless ferals in the dark lol

No your not

[Knighter]

Focus on Football. LOL

More like Flogs on Football. Group is a bunch of try hard amateurs who will stuff our club completely if allowed in. Did anyone hear Wood on SEN!!!! God help us if he gets on our Board

[Harry]

The supporters will keep the club up and running regardless of who sits on the board.  A finals appearance here and there and heaven forbid a finals win or 2 and the tiger army will carry the club and it's finances.  All the incumbents have done is sell hope.  Thats all really.  Get some ruthless people in to make some ruthless decisions.  I don't care if they made a good impression on SEN or talking footy.  What have Peggy "chaos" O'Neal and Brendan "it's very complicated" Gale ever said in the media that has given us a clear indication that they know how to make us successful?

[Tigeritis™©®]

The supporters will keep the club up and running regardless of who sits on the board.  A finals appearance here and there and heaven forbid a finals win or 2 and the tiger army will carry the club and it's finances.  All the incumbents have done is sell hope.  Thats all really.  Get some ruthless people in to make some ruthless decisions.  I don't care if they made a good impression on SEN or talking footy.  What have Peggy "chaos" O'Neal and Brendan "it's very complicated" Gale ever said in the media that has given us a clear indication that they know how to make us successful?

Graeme Richmond. 

[Knighter]

The supporters will keep the club up and running regardless of who sits on the board.  A finals appearance here and there and heaven forbid a finals win or 2 and the tiger army will carry the club and it's finances.  All the incumbents have done is sell hope.  Thats all really.  Get some ruthless people in to make some ruthless decisions.  I don't care if they made a good impression on SEN or talking footy.  What have Peggy "chaos" O'Neal and Brendan "it's very complicated" Gale ever said in the media that has given us a clear indication that they know how to make us successful?

Graeme Richmond. 

Graeme Richmond was responsible for our greatest ever era but also responsible for our worst.  Brought the club to its knees in a trading war with Collingwood that very nearly sent us to the wall. 

[WilliamPowell]

WP - I'm not questioning whether they are correct or not - I'm sure these are the true results.  I'm questioning the classifications and what constitutes sponsorship/marketing revenue.  25m is a huge amount yet 14m for football revenue is very low.  I'm sure they are meeting their legal requirements, but as all good accountants know there are ways you can group results so certain aspects are not brought to the attention of the viewer. 

If membership dollars can legally be classified as marketing revenue then it's best for the club to muddle this with sponsorship so that sponsorship dollars doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.  I'm not questioning the legality. There's many ways you can group your financials to not bring to light certain aspects of the results.

You say members get full Income Statement (PL statement) now.  Where is this? 

I don't care how they set out the results, I just want to know the details of what makes up these revenue streams, and how much of this revenue is reliant on us supporters and members.

Harry, you are not going to get the detail of you want

the full income statement is how it appear and how it is required to appear under the law is page 14 of last years Concise report

A further breakdown is shown in the cash flow statement

I understand you don't like it but as it stands that is what we get.

As members we are entitled to further details.  This is the transparency issue we have with the current board.  Keep the toothless ferals in the dark lol

So why is it an issue now with this regime?

The figures have been presented the same way for decades

But now it's suddenly an issue and it's been casued by this board?

Sorry but no.

[(•))(©™]

So, U feel members aren't allowed to hold the current board accountable?

[Harry]

No what?  You don't want more info?

Regardless of which board did what, we should know the make up of our revenue streams.  Seems they are basking in the glory of supporter funded income.

We still can't get clarification of our major sponsorship income FFS.  Seems they'd prefer no one knows.